On 18 May 2010 14:53, mozer wrote:
Hi,
> I would probably better go for a p:hash extension for the moment but not the
> way it is proposed
> * @algorithm=pxp:hmac_sha @version=1
> * @param(key)= key
> (see the pxp:hmac_sha instead of only pxp:hmac)
Yes, I was also wondering why we had hmac here instead of hmac-sha.
For what is worth, I would rather say pxp:hmac-sha, with an hyphen
instead of an underscore. That's consistent with the existing QName,
and with the actual name of HMAC-SHA.
Regards,
--
Florent Georges
http://fgeorges.org/